imagine for a moment that there is no supreme being dirtying its hands with such minor affairs and that humanity is left to its intellect and understanding to work its way through what it means to live and let live.
it's only fair to point out that the folks who are trying to argue either viewpoint from scripture look, to some, like a pack of trekkies fighting over the mispronunciation of a word in the klingon dictionary.
I've always thought it strange that anyone would truly believe (no matter how sincerely they believe in a higher power in the universe) that any human creation could come close to encompassing everything that being wants for humanity. It also seems odd to me that a being that powerful would be worried about the small stuff, like sexual positions, how we wear our hair, or who has sex with whom. The universe is vast, and we're note even a spec of dust within in.
In fact, it seems the height of hubris to assert that we can know which scriptures are "true" and how God really wants us to interpret them. Much of the OT is laws and customs that were created and codified by a particular patriarchal culture to govern their own lives and make sense of their world and their relationship with their god of battles. It's hardly surprising that a bunch of rules that were intended to ensure procreation, inheritance, health and safety, peace within the community, economic prosperity, the care of children and so on in that world are no longer relevant. It's also unsurprising that we won't all agree about which ones still are important. Orthodox Jews still follow many of the old the dietary laws. Few Christians do anymore, in spite of their being mandated in the same books that are cited to condemn sex between men.
The New Testament was created and interpreted by humans too. Flip the dice again, and the religion could have turned out differently. Or it might not have survived at all.
I saw a documentary a while back on the early history of Christianity. So many "what ifs." So many things that could have gone differently.
This is not to say that these texts have no meaning. But much of their strength and enduring relevance stems from their flexibility. Arguing that today's multitude of faiths and interpretations of said scriptures are a bad thing while simultaneously arguing that the protestant reformation was a good thing (because Catholicism had gone astray) seems a bit, I don't know, odd. The former follows naturally from the latter. Lest we deify Martin Luther and his original intentions too much, we'd best remember that he loathed the very concept of a heliocentric
universe solar system.
Great and influential religious figures can be wrong about some things. They're human. Look at our founding fathers. Some of them kept slaves, and when they wrote the constitution, slavery was still legal (and women couldn't vote). Thankfully, humans are intelligent and flexible enough to reinterpret important documents in light of new sensibilities and understandings about human worth and dignity.